Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 12

hair dropping on to the cheeks on female face, what's it called?

where men have whiskers women usually have a soft down sometimes dropping on to the cheeks (of course adding beauty to them). What is it called?--117.204.94.183 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

While looking at our facial hair article, I found a link in the "In women" section to vellus hair which I think answers your question. Dismas|^(talk) 09:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Or for a non-scientific term, how about peach fuzz ? StuRat (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's an unexpected link. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese sentence help -- いいなか

Hi,

このごろ、ずっと、いそがしかったし、まあ、いいなか。

This is said in response to an invitation to go on a weekend hike. I gather that the general sense is "I've been really busy just lately...", but I'm stuck on まあ、いいなか. まあ is just an exclamation, right? But what about いいなか? Is it いい + な + か? What exactly does it mean here? 86.183.171.125 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC).

Sure it's not a typo for いいのか？　--KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, "いいかな"? --Sushiya (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, it's いいかな. Sorry about that, must need new glasses. So how would we translate that in the context of this sentence, please? 86.183.171.125 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

かな makes a supposition, "I wonder if..." or "I suppose...". In this case the whole phrase would mean "Recently I have been really busy, but well, I suppose it would be ok." --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good sentence. It would be better ja like このところ忙しかったけど、まあ、いいか"/I've been really busy lately, but it's OK. "このごろ" is a bad choice of word. Personally, it's almost incorrect. "な" is not necessarily needed.The translation of the phrase varies and depends on the context. See these. Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The phrase could be an expression of reluctance when the speaker says "まあ、いいかな" slowly or gravely and the meaning is similar to these. [1] and [2]. If spoken in a light tone, it means just OK. "Who cares?" could be used as the translation. Oda Mari (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mari, "I suppose it would be OK" also can carry that nuance of reluctance in English. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. 86.184.237.149 (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC).

The etymology of adj. ‘analytic’ in the academic discipline of ‘analytic philosophy’

Is it the non-agglutinative component of a language that drives meaning?

It is not relating to the meaning of the analytic components of ‘analysis’ as in every other academic disciplines because a language like English, for example, is a highly non-agglutinative language to which the word orders drive the semantic and pragmatic meanings in comparison to many languages of which meaning are arrived from their synthetic components of morphology? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but in their linguistic use the words "analytic" and "agglutinative" are terms referring to the typological status of a language's morphological system, and have very little to do with semantics, and nothing to do with philosophy (as far as I can tell). For a classic exploration of basic morphological typology, you can look at Edward Sapir's 1921 book Language, which is freely available on-line... AnonMoos (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it then not the evolution of radical pragmatism (from the synthetic components of Latin or the analytic components of proto-German) in the discourse of essence that expresses the relationship among words in a sentence by the order of words and by putting together in combination? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have very little idea what you're talking about, but whatever it is, it has almost nothing to do with linguistics. The proto-Germanic language (not "proto-German"[sic]) had a morphological typological status quite similar to that of classical Latin (not too surprising, considering that they're both older Indo-European languages). AnonMoos (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

phonetics help

i m confused about the usage of British [yu] , why is it replaced with [u] this confuses me a lot while i am learning to pronounce and spell. help plz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.250.73 (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Without more context it is difficult to say whether this might be a reflection of grammar or due to regional dialect. Can you give us some example sentences (and any other context if relevant) in which you have encountered this? [PS: you inadvertently duplicated your question; I will delete the superfluous post.] 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Does our discussion of yod-dropping help at all? +Angr 17:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that yod-dropping is the correct explanation. Certain words with /ju/ in Britain have /u/ in America, such as "student" (/'stjudɨnt/ in Britain, /'studɨnt/in America), "duty" (British /'djuti/, American /'duti/), or "nuke" (British /njuk/, American /nuk/). These differences are predictable, only occurring after /t/, /d/ and /n/, so they shouldn't make spelling any more difficult (except for creating new homophones, e.g. "dew" /dju/ and "do" /du/). 76.204.127.175 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

her und hier

Is "her" the correct word for "towards here" in German? My spelling may be wrong. How, why, and when would you use hier and her in the same phrase/command? Fresh sunburn may be to blame, but I can't think of similar constructions in English. Maedin\^talk 20:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Trusting my knowledge of German without looking it up, "her" means "towards here" while "hier" means "at here". The only example that comes to mind immediately is "komm her und bleib hier!" JIP | Talk 21:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. How about the example I was given and the word combo hierher — "Kommen Sie hierher!"? I suppose I am confused as to why the German sees a need to distinguish the here in the same command. Wouldn't one here suffice . . . is there an ambiguous element to the adverb that I'm overlooking? Maedin\^talk 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Her" contrasts with "Hin", and appears in a number of compounds. "Hier" mainly compounds with following prepositions. According to the dictionary, "hierher" means "to here, to this point, so far"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This is actually something that's been puzzling me for years. "Hier" means "at here", but then there's "her" and "hin", of which one means "to here" and the other means "from here", but I've never managed to figure out exactly when does which means which. Why is it that "hierher" means "to here" but "hineinfügen" means "bring here"? It's much easier in Finnish, where the same word ending always means the same thing. The only confusing bit is the really complicated rules about how to actually write the word ending. For example, "tänne" means "to here" but "täältä" means "from here". This is one of the countless things about Finnish grammar that I take for granted as a native speaker but feel would be hopelessly lost with were I a non-native speaker. JIP | Talk 22:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't help you with German much beyond what I said above, but in some circumstances the French can be fairly strict about distinctions such as amener vs. emmener vs. ramener where English speakers are often fairly loose about "bring" vs. "take"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think hineinfügen means "bring here". I think I'd translate it "insert", which is what einfügen means, and I don't think of the hin as adding much meaning. Hin basically means "away from the speaker" and her means "toward the speaker". Hierher and hierhin mean "hither" and "hence" respectively, except no one uses those words in English anymore. The distinction between hinein and herein is often lost in colloquial speech, as both get contracted to rein; likewise both hinaus and heraus get contracted to raus. +Angr 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I stilll use "hither" and "hence". "Hence" is really useful: "hither" less so. Is this like that time the English teacher told us "thus" was archaic? 86.164.69.239 (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If I knew where that teacher was, I'd go thither and shew him a thynge or deuce.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm relieved to find that you're not all clicking your tongues at me and pointing out something obvious that I've missed. I think I'll abandon hierher for now and look into it later, once I'm no longer learning delightful phrases like "Where do you want to wait for me?" Thanks for your help so far! I shall probably have many more French and German questions soon, :) Maedin\^talk 07:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

June 13

What do you call this seed?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/baby_kunnikulangara/2440368709/ I am not asking for the botanical name. Is there a common name for such seeds that fly in the air?--117.204.82.169 (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

They are commonly called airborne seeds, which includes winged seeds and floating seeds. (Respectively "helicopters" and "fairies" around here.) Not sure how to provide a reference for such a thing, but google will bear me out. 81.131.67.82 (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a woodsprite to me. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have heard them called "fluff" (SW Ontario) or even "dandelion fluff" (despite the fact it's obviously not a dandelion seed). I think this is going to vary a lot from place to place. Matt Deres (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese sentence -- なれ

Hi

あしたは、また、元気になれそうな気がする。　

I believe this means something like "I think I should feel better again tomorrow". Is that right? However, I don't understand なれ. Could anyone explain that to me? 86.174.166.66 (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

なれ comes from なれる, which is the potential form of the verb なる - 'become, get'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. So, literally it's "...can become/get better...", right? But why does なれる become just なれ here, I wonder? 86.174.166.66 (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

That is because when そう is used after a verb without the る ending (for -ru verbs, which all verbs act like when in the potential form (-eru)), the meaning is 'seems like, looks like', etc. When used after verbs with the る ending still attached, the meaning 'changes' to '[somebody] told me that...'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. I think I must have accidentally missed a page in my textbook! Thank you. 86.161.152.225 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

Is cr*p a swear word?

While I know about WP:NOTCENSORED, I feel that it's more polite to use euphemisms. When I first heard of the word cr*p, I assumed it was some kind of mild profanity. However, the CALD does not identify 'something which is not worth anything, not useful, nonsense or of bad quality' as 'offensive' (their word for vulgar), while 'solid waste, or when an animal or person produces solid waste' is tagged as 'offensive'. (I'm using the e-version.) I was surprised as 'cr*ppy' was also considered offensive, and other words, such as the s-word, are considered offensive, both the original and figurative meanings. Then, on our article about profanity, I discovered a neat paper called 'delete expletives' which says cr*p is considered swearing by a minority. It is listed under some words that I, or the CALD for that matter, consider not swearing. So is cr*p a swear word? (I'm not a native speaker.) Kayau Voting IS evil 13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but a mild one. If s.t. annoying happens, you might say "Oh crap!". That's milder than "Oh shit!", which you might use for s.t. truly inconvenient, or if you hurt yourself. — kwami (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But c**p[3] means exactly the same as s**t, so is considered to be on a par by many. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Meaning the same doesn't immediately imply the same level of offensiveness/crudeness, though. "Fuck" and "copulate" both mean the same thing, but there's a large difference between "Are those two rabbits copulating?" and "Are those two rabbits fucking?" -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To me c**p is quite a lot milder than s**t. There are many situations in which I would be happy saying c**p but would not dream of saying s**t. I'm from the UK, by the way. 86.174.166.66 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

"Crap" is allowed on U.S. broadcast television, so I really wouldn't worry about shocking people by using it. It still might be impolite in some contexts, but probably only mildly so in itself... AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The way I see this, in article space, never use even a mild profanity like 'crap', except where it's part of a direct quote or the passage is literally talking about (say) dog crap - and even then, a more formal word would be preferred. in talk or administrative space, profanity is not too much of an issue unless you're using it to attack someone: e.g. 'Oh, fuck, I forgot about editing policy' is not too objectionable, while 'user X is such a fuck' should be avoided at all costs.

wp:NOTCENSORED was not written to allow people to justify using swear words (any more than the purpose of the free speech clause in the US constitution was to allow the publication of pornography); it was designed to keep people from removing encyclopedic material that some people find troubling. read wp:CIV if you want the appropriate policy that governs talk page language. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't avoid words like "crap" in the article space because they are profanities; we avoid them because they are slang. Any slang, whether a profanity or not, is inappropriate in an encyclopaedia article. --Tango (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2, I am asking about real life, not WP. :) Like Tango said we avoid using these words because it's slang. My linking to WP:NOTCENSORED is not related to the question. After all this is the reference desk not the help desk. BTW, a lot of Wikipedians use swear words in the talk namespace, so although it isn't actually good it isn't prohibited. If it's too inflammatory though the user should be blocked for repeated incivility or personal attacks. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Crap is not a swear word. (It was, however, mildly funny that you censored it in your main post.) Swearing on-wiki makes me slightly uncomfortable (not because I'm offended, but because I know others may be) but there are times when it is, well not warranted but understandable. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 05:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, crap! well, in real life there's a tried and true, easy as pie way to tell if a word is a swear word. would you feel comfortable saying it to your mother/grandmother in casual conversation? if not, then not... --Ludwigs2 05:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You have just disproven the existence of swear words. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't SS? Perhaps it's one of those like 'God damn' or 'Christ Almighty' that only some people consider offensive. BTW, I agree with 174.24.195.56. B******t means the same as poppycock, but the latter is not a swear word. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese

What do the names Hareta and Mitsumi (the main characters in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Adventure!) mean? Typing in Hareta gives me nothing, and typing in Mitsumi only brings up an article about an electronics company. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the Japanese Wikipedia page, the names of those characters are written in katakana. Katakana are a phonetic rendering and do not display the meaning themselves. Without kanji, the names could mean practically anything. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But most other Japanese names (e.g. Hikari, Sakura, etc.) have only one meaning, or possibly a few closely-related meanings. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Some do, of course, but not most, just as in English we get some names that have an actual meaning in modern English (e.g. Pearl, Rose, etc.) and many others which do not (e.g. Walter, Elizabeth, Andrew, etc.). These two names Mitsumi and Hareta may have had some significance in older stages of Japanese, though I doubt that. A number of Japanese names can be formed by combining certain syllables - 'ko', 'yo', and 'mi', for example, can be used at the end of girls' names. 'Mitsu' can be used in the main stem of a name (both male and female), so 'Mitsuko', 'Mitsuyo', and 'Mitsumi' are all girls' names in Japanese (and you will find names like 'Yoshimitsu', 'Hidemitsu', and 'Mitsuo' for men). The actual meaning of the syllable 'mitsu' will vary from name to name, and will largely depend on the kanji. If there is no kanji, then the meaning is lost (or didn't exist to begin with). As for your assertion that 'most other Japanese names (e.g. Hikari, Sakura, etc.) have only one meaning, or possibly a few closely-related meanings ', you are misunderstanding the naming conventions in Japan. A name such as 'Megumi' can be written as 恵 (Blessing),　恵美 (Blessing & Beauty),　愛実 (Love & Truth),　愛美 (Love & Beauty), or　萌 (Flower Bud), or in other ways. All of these written forms have exactly the same pronunciation but different 'meanings'. Then there is the problem of ateji, which are kanji used in a name to indicate either the pronunciation or the meaning, but not both. In any case, Mitsumi and Hareta do not exist as stand-alone words in Japanese (except that 'hareta' is the past tense of the verb 'hareru' - 'to clear up/be clear' (as in weather)). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Morgen

If morgen is German for both morning and tomorrow, how would you express "tomorrow morning"? Maedin\^talk 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Morgen früh for the early morning, morgen Vormittag for the later morning. The border between them is around 9 AM or so. +Angr 19:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You also occasionally hear "morgen am morgen" Rimush (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In Spanish, where "mañana" means "morning" as well as "tomorrow", "mañana por la mañana" means "tomorrow morning". (wikt:mañana)

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks very much, all three, :) Maedin\^talk 19:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding

Let's say that we have a document that goes along the lines of something like this:

1. Statement A holds true.
2. Statement B holds true.
3. Statement C holds true.
4. Notwithstanding the above, Statement D holds true.

My understanding is that Statement D somehow seems contradictory to (or prevented by) Statements A, B, and C. But, nonetheless, despite the seeming contradiction or disharmony, Statement D still holds true. So Line 4 above might be paraphrased as: "Statement D still holds true, despite the fact that A, B, and C exist and are seemingly contradictory." Is my understanding correct? If my understanding is correct, I have a follow-up question. If not, my follow-up question is moot. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

It is apparently contradictory. You're initially led to believe that A is always a true statement, but down the track you realise it isn't always true because D overrides it. Better to have been forewarned that there are some circumstances where A is not true. A more clearly written document would say things like "Statement A/B/C holds true, subject to Statement D". Then simply, "Statement D holds true". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of ‘notwithstanding’ as preposition, rather than as an adverb, is an instance of a necessary connection if the statements A, B, C, and D are propositions; rather than a contradiction in which the two concepts are merely connected is that the sense of one concept is contained in that of the other?

Like in these statements:

A: X is a teacher.

B: X is an adviser.

C: X is an activist.

D: Notwithstanding the above, X does x,y, and z things. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite following bitpart and Jack. the 'notwithstanding' in this kind of case simply means "despite all of those, the following is true". thus: "Jill is opinionated, Jill is rude, Jill is loud. Notwithstanding all that, you should listen to her." it doesn't have to be contradictory or paradoxical, it just needs to recognize a presupposition about Jill that one might make hearing the first statements, and then dispute that presupposition as false. --Ludwigs2 00:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Very true, Ludwigs2. I was thinking of a more limited example. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Does it mean that ’notwithstanding’ is irrelevant in the context where the statements are paradoxical as oppose to where statements are in contradiction? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

no. it's all about presumptions. a paradox is just a set of seemingly true statements that lead one to an irrational conclusion. then it would make sense to say 'notwithstanding the statements, this more rational conclusion is correct'. --Ludwigs2 06:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input above. I guess that I was thinking of statements that are more along the lines of "rules" or conditionals or such, telling us what course of action an individual must take. For example, let's say that two friends make a bet:

1: If it rains tomorrow, you owe me $50.
2: If it snows tomorrow, you owe me $100.
3: If it's sunny tomorrow, you owe me $500.
4: Notwithstanding the above, if we have a tornado tomorrow, you owe me $1000.

Can someone please explain / paraphrase exactly what statement 4 means? I am not quite sure how to read it, in context of the other three statements. I don't know what to make of the "notwithstanding" word in examples such as this (setting conditions or rules). Thank you very much! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

That's an odd use of the word, I think, but I would interpret it as meaning that if there is a tornado I owe you exactly $1000, regardless of the rest of the weather. Without the "notwithstanding the above" bit, if there were a tornado and some snow, I'd owe you $1100. --Tango (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is bit odd as to its convention that provides a kind of anchor or a court of appeal on the question of standards and appropriateness that apply to the norms on specific writing versus to those of simple spoken utterances. But for an elaboration, I guess there is nothing wrong with that. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up question

Thanks for the above replies. So, here is my follow-up question ... which was the source of my confusion ... and which prompted my original question. Please take a look at my example above -- the example with the rain, snow, sun, and tornado scenarios. Would we say that conditions 1, 2, and 3 withstand condition 4? Or would we say that condition 4 withstands conditions 1, 2, and 3? This is why I was originally confused about the term "notwithstanding" to begin with. Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

No, I don't think that use is standard. Each of the four items is pretty much the same kind of deal, so there's no need to use a notwithstanding in there. Ludwigs has the right idea; the "notwithstanding" serves to reassure the reader/hearer that all the items, however odd they sound together, are all held to be true by the speaker. It's kind of like a (sic) at the end of a quote that could be misinterpreted as having a typo. Matt Deres (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks to all for the helpful input and replies. Much appreciated. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Translation into Italian

I would be very grateful if someone could translate the following for me into good clear Italian (i.e. not the dodgy kind I can cobble together with the help of an online translator!)

"Sorry, but this booking was made in error, and I want to cancel it. I understand that the deposit is not refundable. Please email me to confirm that the booking has been cancelled. Thank you, and my apologies for the mistake."

Thanks folks - Karenjc 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Chiedo scusa, ma questa prenotazione è stata fatta per sbaglio e vorrei cancellarla. Comprendo che la caparra non è rimborsabile. Per cortesia, mandatemi un'email per confermare che la prenotazione è stata cancellata. Grazie e chiedo scusa per l'errore". From a native speaker. :-)--151.51.13.201 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I needed. Much appreciated - thanks again. - Karenjc 12:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Was a former"

I just read an article about a former football player who has died. The article says he "was a former football player". Isn't he still a former football player? Or is the original wording correct? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

it's a bit redundant, but not too far outside the parameters of normal speech (and certainly not out side the parameters of normal sports journalism material, which has a long history of misapplications of language) ""is a former football player" and ""was a former football player" would be largely interchangeable in common usage. The first would be more common when speaking about someone alive - in that case 'former' would be a euphemism for 'retired' or 'from before your time' - and the phrasing would be most commonly used with an 'and' like "...is a former football player and team coach". --Ludwigs2 23:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This often happens in encyclopedia articles when a living subject dies. While they're alive, if they're retired it's correct to say "Joe Bloggs is a former Albanian football player". The moment they die, it's not just a case of adjusting the tense of the verb 'to be' from "is" to "was". Our whole perspective on Joe changes, from someone who's a retired player, to someone who was notable during his life for playing football. The lede should then change from "Joe Bloggs is a former Albanian football player" to "Joe Bloggs was an Albanian football player", but sometimes editors, in their haste to report that Joe is now dead, omit to attend to all the fine points. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Jack, reading that sentence just now - "Joe Bloggs was an Albanian football player" - gave me the impression that he still was one when he died and that he hadn't retired. 'Was a former football player' sounds better to me, because he was one (i.e. a former football player) when he died. However, 'is a former football player' sounds strange because he no longer 'is' anything. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Apply your argument to real people who left their most important office/occupation well before they died. Would we say "Ronald Reagan was a former U.S. President ..." or "Ronald Reagan was the U.S. President 1981-89 ..."? Answer: the latter. He died in 2004, 15 years after leaving the White House. During those 15 years, it would have been correct to say "he is a former president". In a chronological sense, he remains a former president, so it's not wrong to continue to refer to him as such, but not with the past tense of "to be'. Because "he was a former president" would be true only of the years 1989-2004, the autumn of his life, whereas our post-mortem interest in him is what he did in the spring and summer of his life. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you shortchanging Ronnie his winter? That makes me so discontent. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "Was a former" would only be coherent when speaking of someone's retirement years, after they've died or for a specific event in the past: "He was one of several former players to participate in ..." — kwami (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I too agree that we shouldn't say "was a former" either of someone alive ("is a former") or of someone dead ("was a") except under special circumstances. However, I also wouldn't say "Joe Bloggs is a former Albanian football player" if he's still Albanian (Xho Blogz, perhaps?) but "Joe Bloggs is an Albanian former football player" or "Joe Bloggs is a former football player from Albania". Unless, of course, there's a variety of football called Albanian football (cf. American football, Canadian football, and Australian football). +Angr 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe Xho Bllogz. --Магьосник (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If there isn't, there should be. I can't wait to attend the inaugural Albanian Football World Cup. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see your reasoning, Angr, and in principle I agree with it. But it's not really necessary to make that distinction, because if the subject is no longer Albanian, it would be necessary to state what their nationality/citizenship now is, but since no alternative has been stated, we can safely assume the "former" refers only to their football playing activities, and not to their nationality. Cf. "Yusuf Bloxha is a retired Albanian chicken sexer" - nobody would read this to mean that he's no longer an Albanian, just no longer a chicken sexer. Same with "former". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

June 14

The phonetic transcription /ˌmænɪˈtoʊbə/ (Manitoba)

It does not seem correct. Anyone wants to check this in WP? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems okay to me. I can also imagine hearing /ˌmænɪˈtobə/. The second vowel comes out in various ways in my head and I'm not sure what it should be; /ˌmænɨˈtoʊbə/ and /ˌmænəˈtoʊbə/ also seem possible (or /ˌmænɨˈtobə/ and /ˌmænəˈtobə/). But I am no linguist so maybe I am wrong. What seemed incorrect to you? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to delete this post, but your post came in. Now I have to answer. I have to listen to some native speakers about this carefully because the ending has so far not been like of the schwa, which is little bit weak but then the long ‘a’ also seems little bit strong to my ears. The stresses seem alright, but the first ‘a’ also seem something like of a Canadian specific (not of the RP). -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The schwa sounds right to me; I would pronounce "-toba" the same way I pronounce "sofa", for example. it is a little longer than the schwa in the middle, but I think that is just because there is nothing else after it. The /æ/ also sounds right. It is the same vowel as in the word "man", anyway. (I'm Canadian, by the way, although I'm not from Manitoba.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that /ˌmænɪˈtoʊbə/ is how an American would say it, and /ˌmænɪˈtoʊbʌ/ is how I as a Canadian say it (the last vowel is not quite a schwa). 220.29.16.77 (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If we're going with the Wikipedia IPA transcription scheme, I'd go with /ˌmænɨˈtoʊbə/. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You can see and hear http://www.forvo.com/search/Manitoba/. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it literally impossible to believe that there's a significant difference between the American and the Canadian pronunciation of the final vowel of this word. +Angr 13:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the World has /ˌmænɪˈtəʊbə/. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds rather British...there is definitely a rounded vowel in there when I say it. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the majority of Manitobans pronounce 'Manitoba' the same way as in Wavelength’s attached link. So it seems to me that the first ‘a’ is simply /a/, rather than the /æ/ as in ‘bad’. The schwa seems correct for the second ‘a’ on Canada if the first ‘a’ is pronounced with /æ/, but for 'Manitoba', it seems to me that it is not a schwa if the previous vowel is not too enlonged. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. 220; the final vowel is not a schwa sound, but more like the ʌ sound. I don't know how American versus Canadian pronunciation would play into it, unless you just assume that Americans always pronounce stuff incorrectly :-). Matt Deres (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it seems like you Canadians have an especially open allophone of unstressed schwa in certain positions. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I think the idea of actual openness is here undermined, rather than saying that it is of an allophone of schwa. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Matt, are you saying it does not have the vowels of "soda"? — kwami (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's close, but not quite. I would say that the second vowel is more like ə - the ɪ would only be used if you were carefully enunciating. Matt Deres (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's my urban southern/southwestern Ontario accent, but I can't imagine pronouncing Manitoba in the ways that are being described... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has some points, but the problem that i have is to tell exactly what it is. I would not say that the first ‘a’ is /æ/ and second ‘a’ is a schwa. That is, it seems to me that the schwa, whether it is silghtly unstressed or not, is still too high as to how it is spoken by majority. Is it may be something that is of history specific because English language does not have many words that have ‘a’ endings? Also, I think some people use /æ/ for the first ‘a’ to pronounce Canada but not for Manitoba. Correct? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I pronounce the initial vowels in Canada and Manitoba the same, though there will be some slight difference due to the "a" of Manitoba being surrounded by nasal consonants. "Man" and "Can" have identical vowel sounds for me, so far as I can tell. Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for me too. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unusual use of "The" for a German speaker of English

My middle-aged neighbour speaks pretty much perfect English (she has lived in Australia since the early 70s). However, she does have a few odd turns of phrase. One that I find the most interesting is her use of the word "the". She has a dog, whose name is Lisa. She invariably refers to the dog as "the Lisa". For example, "I am going to take the Lisa for a walk". Her elderly mother (whom we all call oma) gets referred to as "the oma". As in, "I had to take the oma to the doctor yesterday". Just a note, she doesn't do it all the time. Just say her sister's name is Jane, she will never say "I went to visit the Jane yesterday". Is this a common thing among German speakers, or is it just her way of speaking. Thanks everyone!!! 121.44.83.127 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that it is normal to use an article before someone's name in German. There's actually an ongoing discussion at the how-to-learn-any-language.com forums on this topic. See: [4]. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This subject has come up on this desk before as well, see the discussion here. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

See German name#Order of names and use of articles. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed that isn't mentioned there is that the definite article is very common with the names of fictional characters, especially when you're referring to the character in its capacity as a role, e.g. Rupert Grint spielte den Ron in den Harry-Potter-Filmen ("Rupert Grint played [the role of] Ron in the Harry Potter films"). +Angr 20:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

While there are certainly plenty of German speakers who do put an article before someone's name, it is not universal. I certainly wouldn't use it myself. Probably again a regional dialect thing. I'm from the north BTW.213.160.108.26 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a parallel to the occasional British use of "our" in front of names. Thus "the Lisa" or "our Lisa" would mean "the one we are all familiar with" as opposed to anyone or anything else named Lisa. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Translate short Latin passage

My Latin is too dreadful for translation, despite the four years it made up part of my school schedule! Would someone be willing to translate a short passage for me, please? It is from a page in a public domain work, [5], about Trier and the history of Saint Paulin Church. I've copied it below:

Ursiniano subdiacono sub hoc tumulo ossa

Quiescunt qui meruit sanctorum sociari sepulcris,

Quem nec Tartarus furens nec saeva poena nocebit

Hunc titulum posuit Ludula dulcissima conux.

R.(maybe a B?) V. K. D. Vixit annis XXXIII

I realise the German translation is available below the Latin, but the Fraktur is harder to read at that size and my translation ended up garbled, anyway. Thanks! I wouldn't dare submit my attempt, so I leave it to others, :) Maedin\^talk 12:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Under this tumulus rest the bones of subdiacon Ursinianus, who deserved to rest among the saints, who is not hurt by hell's fury nor by grave punishment. This inscription was made by his sweetest wife Ludula. Died 5 days before the calends of December, lived 33 years. (translated mostly from the German text, my Latin is quite rusty) -- Ferkelparade π 12:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Small point: Nocebit is the future tense, so "whom neither raging hell nor savage punishment will harm". Also, note the spelling of conjux. Deor (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both, that's just what I needed. Sorry about the typo, typing Latin isn't my forte, ;-) Maedin\^talk 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Subdiacon" should also be subdeacon. Also, if you want to keep the sense of the dative in the first line, it actually says that his wife Ludula "made this inscription for Ursianus, whose bones rest under this tomb." (Ferkelparade's translation is much more sensible though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Tumulus is probably more literal (judging by the German?) but would tomb be more appropriate? Maedin\^talk 19:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A tumulus is literally a burial mound, but it also meant any sort of tomb or grave (which is also what "sepulcrum" means). It's possible that the choice of words and syntax is also affected by meter, if someone wants to take the time to scan it... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(Nevermind, it doesn't really seem to scan into anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

German pronunciation of s and ess-tsett

Is there any difference in pronunciation between the German for 'he is' (er ist) and 'he eats' (er ißt)? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. They're complete homophones. (But "he eats" has been spelled er isst, not er ißt, for more than 10 years now.) +Angr 13:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, in colloquial German, at least in the South, "er ist" is usualy shortened to "er is". The Standard German pronounciation is identical to "er isst", as Angr says -- Ferkelparade π 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You get that colloquially in the North too. In the South, that reduction would only be found in the Southeast (Bavaria and Austria), as in the Alemannic-influenced Southwest (Baden, Swabia, Switzerland), it's "er isch". I'm not sure whether er isst is pronounced "er ischt" in the Southwest, but I'd expect so. +Angr 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

<squeeze>Negative on the Swabian, "he eats" - "er ißt" (also: "er ißt grad" - "grad" as a shortened form of "gerade [jetzt]" - right now) is clearly different from "er ist". "Er isch grad am Essa." - "Er ist gerade beim Essen.". -- 109.193.27.65 (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)</squeeze>

I expected them to be different in Swabian, but I'm not sure how they're different. I know that standard "er ist" is pronounced "er isch" in Swabian; the question is, how is "er isst" pronounced? Is it pronounced the same as in Standard German (with /s/), or is it pronounced "ischt"? +Angr 21:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a hissing sound, so it's "ißt" just like in Standard German. Though the more common way of saying it would be "Er isch grad am Essa." (or "...beim Essa."), rather than "Er ißt grad." -- 109.193.27.65 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why did I get the CAPTCHA for my last edit? I don't see any external links in it. -- 109.193.27.65 (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On a similar vein, in the Rammstein song Du hast, there is some ambiguity between whether the singer means 'du hast mich' ('you have me') or 'du haßt mich' ('you hate me'). Here, as in the above examples, the 's' and 'ß' are pronounced the same. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

'du haßt mich' is spelled 'du hasst mich' after the last spelling reform, 'ß' only follows long vowels Rimush (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

For spelling changes, see German orthography reform of 1996#Sounds and letters. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Old High German and early Middle High German had a voiceless dental or alveolar fricative sound, usually spelled with the letter "z", but distinct from both ordinary [s] and the fricative [ts]. This old phoneme generally became an [s] sound in modern German (but [š] in hirsch), which possibly could have influenced the development of "sz" to write an [s] sound... AnonMoos (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Really?!? I've always thought there was a difference between the pronunciation of s and ss in German, just like there is in Finnish. The difference between s and ss is grammatical, for example kasi (the number 8) and kassi (bag) are minimal pairs. People from the capital area can spot people from Turku pretty much instantly when they habitually shorten the properly grammatical -ssa/-ssä endings into the dialectical -sa/-sä. It's an instant sign "that person there comes from Turku!". I've always thought ss in German was pronounced like ss in Finnish, but are you really telling me it's actually pronounced identically to s? I've always pronounced it ss when speaking German, and even native speakers have always understood me perfectly. JIP | Talk 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Really. Unlike Finnish, German does not have contrastive length in consonants. A single written ‹s› between vowels is voiced (/z/), as in Hase /haːzə/, and (with a very few exceptions) the vowel before it is long. If /s/ appears between vowels it's spelled ‹ß› if the preceding vowel is long (or a diphthong), e.g. Straße /ʃtʁaːsə/ and ‹ss› if the preceding vowel is short, e.g. Wasser /vasɐ/. It may well be the case that /s/ after a short vowel is phonetically longer than /s/ after a long vowel (I know that this is true in many languages and wouldn't be in the least surprised if it's also true in German), so it's not too surprising if Germans have no difficulty understanding you (JIP) when in your Finnish accent you pronounce Wasser [vassɐ]. After all, they themselves do (presumably) make the [s] of Wasser a little longer, and anyway, they don't distinguish between /vasɐ/ and /vassɐ/, so there's no other word that your pronunciation of Wasser could be confused with. +Angr 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In my experience (Bavarian German), ss is only pronounced longer – and louder – if people try to explain the ss/ß difference to schoolchildren or foreigners. The Duden (Aussprachewörterbuch, Pronunciation Dictionary) doesn't make a difference, and if there is one in everyday speech, it is so small that it has escaped my attention. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese "probable" mood

Are there any rules about when verb forms like 行こう express probability and when they express volition? For example, in one place I've seen 行こう translated as "I will probably go", yet in another place 田中さんが行くから僕も行こう　is translated as "Since Mr Tanaka is going, I'll go too." How do we know it doesn't mean "I'll probably go too"? Or can it? 86.173.171.125 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

By 'rules', what would you mean? Grammatical rules? In that case, no. Only by context would you know. However, I will say that the volition usage is more common than the probability usage in the spoken language. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you KageTora. Is there a difference in this respect between a first person subject and a second or third person subject? For example, is "I'll (probably) go" more likely to be volitional and "He'll (probably) go" more likely to be probable, perhaps? 86.173.171.125 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

Yes, I'm sorry, in hindsight perhaps I should have explained it like that. With a third person subject, the usage is more 'probable' than 'volitional', for obvious reasons. In a similar way, with a first person subject, the usage is more likely to be 'volitional'. You are correct. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks. 86.173.171.125 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

I suppose it's similar to "I suppose" in English. "I suppose I'll go"; "Since Mr Tanaka is going, I suppose I'll go too." Either of those could express either a probability or a definite intent (but no strong desire). -- BenRG (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't directly express volition of a third person in Japanese, whereas you can of yourself. For instance, you can say ikitai 'want to go' of yourself, and you can ask it of a 2nd person. But for the 3nd person, you need a special evidential form, ikitagaru. I expect the readings of ikoo relate to that. — kwami (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The sample sentence expresses decision. If you want express probability, you have to use the subjunctive mood for the first part. 田中さんが行くのなら、ぼくも行くかもしれない/ぼくも行くつもりだ/たぶんぼくも行く/たぶんぼくも行くだろう/ぼくも行こうかな。Oda Mari (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity of “Mitsubishi car”

Why is the term “Mitsubishi car” ambiguous? --84.62.217.198 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it is? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. ""Mitsubishi car" could refer to either a motor car (aka automobile) made by Mitsubishi Motors or a railcar made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. It's possible that other products made by one or another member of the Mitsubishi Keiretsu or its forerunning Zaibatsu can or could validly be called "cars". 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And for an ambiguous sentence, how about "I'm running late, I'm at the train tracks waiting for a Mitsubishi car to move". StuRat (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this same guy who used to ask us questions like "Why isn't Mitsubishi a possible word of Yucatec"? +Angr 06:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I digged up a little, and one of IPs of that guy was 84.62.205.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). So this one is probably the same. No such user (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was suspicious when I saw the question, but answered anyway. Thanks. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the pronunciation for "Only" a regional thing?

I was stunned when looking at a dictionary and seeing that only was pronounced - or supposed to be pronounced - with the "-ly" at the second syllable, and he "on-" like it came from "alone," as ur article on only seems to suggest. But, growing up, I don't remember anyone ever saying it like that - I always heard it said as "olny."

have I discovered one of the key elements in an Ohio accent , or is this actually the normal way to say it? Or, is it a U.S. way? (I suppose it could be like many people used to say "nuclear" as "nucular," but I always said "nuclear" and many people I know did, too.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.155 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Olny" certainly wasn't the usual pronunciation in the parts of the U.S. where I grew up, when I was growing up there. I've never noticed hearing it before. I think I may have heard "on'y" from time to time when I was growing up in Texas, but "olny" is new to me. +Angr 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember ever hearing it either, and I've spent time in various states across the US, though never Ohio. — kwami (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I've never ever heard 'olny', from my limited experience of working with Americans in Japan. I've heard "on'y", but never paid any attention to it because we say that here in my part of England too. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I speak Inland Northern American English -- the majority of my extended family still live in the Akron-Canton-Cleveland area -- yet I don't pronounce it "olny" and neither does anyone else in that region. Xenon54 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've only heard "olny" as a pronunciation for Olney, Maryland. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This question instantly reminded me of an article I stumbled upon here a while ago: Metathesis_(linguistics) --91.67.77.67 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and have visited most of the States. I have never heard "olny" in my life. (I've never heard "ony" either, but I haven't spent much time in England). Is it possible the original poster simply mishears the word? I've met people who always mispronounce certain words in bizarre ways, swapping sounds or inserting new sounds, because of errors that fossilized in childhood, and thus fail to hear how the words are actually pronounced. Paul Davidson (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I grew up in western Michigan, and I do say both "only" and "olny". I can't find any definite pattern to which I use. In casual speech, they both exist in free variation (with maybe a slight preference for "olny"), whereas in formal speech I only ever say "only". 173.66.161.221 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I find this thread very peculiar. If I ever heard anyone say "olny", I'd assume they just momentarily got their tongue twisted. As a regular pronunciation it sounds, to me, plain illiterate (I do not intend any offence to people whose regional dialect may have it pronounced that way). 86.184.235.66 (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was skeptical when I first read this, but upon analyzing my own speech (I could use a computer spectrogram, but instead I'm just watching my tongue), I find myself hybridizing the n and l. Note that I use a "dark" or velar l in non-initial positions (American Chicago/midwest standard + lazy mouth accent), so it's /n‿ʟ/. Now, add that to my pronunciation of the o, which is a backed-round-schwa into high-back, /əʊ/, and I'd say my initial articulation is at the velum, making my pronunciation indeed more like "olny" than "only", but just barely. Conclusion: don't discount double-articulation in the American dark-L. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm from central North Carolina, and I have never in my memory heard it pronounced "olny" or "ony". I have always pronounced it and only ever heard it "olnly". Note: I have parents from Ohio and Pennsylvania, so as much as it pains me to admit it, I don't have much of a Southern accent. Falconus^{p t c} 11:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Was that a typo or did you really mean "olnly", Falconus? Seems to be making a lot of unnecessary work for the old mouth there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I use olny fairly often (SW Ontario). I've done so all my life when I don't consciously make myself pronounce it OWN-ly, which still sounds forced to me. I suppose I picked it up from my parents. While it sounds obvious when you carefully enunciate the word, the sounds run together well enough in speech that listeners generally don't hear it - I've never been "called" on it, for example, and I hang around the kind of folks that still give me a hard time for once saying "drindle" instead of "dirndl" while half unconscious at Oktoberfest. Matt Deres (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic, but confusion between "n" and "l" is common in northern, especially north-east England where chimney is often "chimley" and one even hears "kidley" for kidney. I've always assumed that this was just lazyness because of the difficulty in pronouncing "n" following "m" or "d", but is there something else going on? Dbfirs 21:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Olnly - yes, I have heard that! I can't remember where. I don't know if it's related no olny, though: [l] tends to get inserted after some vowels. I've heard sawl for saw quite a bit, for example. Perhaps a confusion of back vowels and dark [l]? Perhaps it was only --> olnly via the same path as saw --> sawl, then a reduction to olny because of the dbl el? — kwami (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Kanji problems

Apparently, 光 is pronounced "mitsu" (as in the names Mitsuko and Mitsumi), but romaji.org and everywhere else I've looked gives the pronunciation of 光 as hikari. What's up with this? Was the website with the first claim wrong? --BradfordAssay (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is correct. 光 can be pronounced "mitsu", as well as 'hikari' (and 'kou', for its on'yomi). Many kanji have multiple readings, and are not just limited to one each for kun'yomi and on'yomi. In this particular case, I can say off the top of my head that the pronunciation 'mitsu' is used only in names (only because I can't think of a normal word in which it is pronounced like that - perhaps someone else can come along and jog my memory). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Like KageTora says, "mitsu" is a common pronunciation when the character is used for a name, and extremely rare otherwise. The only common noun I can find which uses that pronunciation is 竹光, takemitsu, meaning "bamboo sword". Paul Davidson (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Can the expression "There is Y for X" be replaced by the expression "X has Y"?

For example, can the expressions: "there is a message for you", "there is no demand for sugar", "there is a greater number for every number", be replaced by the expressions: "you have a message", "sugar has no demand", "every number has a greater number" ? HOOTmag (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In these examples, yes, but not in every example. E.g., "there is water for your horse" and "your horse has water" are not equivalents. John M Baker (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sugar has no demand" and "Every number has a greater number" aren't really idiomatic where I come from. I doubt that either would fall naturally from the lips or pen of someone whose native language is English. Deor (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Both other editors are from US, and they approved the usage mentioned above in my three examples, so maybe you're not from the states, or this reflects different kinds of English. HOOTmag (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sugar has no demand" is not only unidiomatic, it means something other than what you suppose it to mean. It's consumers etc who have demands for sugar and other commodities; the commodities themselves do not have demands. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jack, I fully understand your reason, but I'm still waiting for more clarifications from Americans, because all Americans who have taken a part in this thread (i.e. the first editors) did approve of the expression "sugar has no demand". It surprised me too, like you, but it's a fact...:) HOOTmag (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that's a fact is that 2 editors who happen to be Americans think your alternatives are OK, and 2 others disagree. From such vanishingly small sample sizes, you cannot extrapolate any meaningful general conclusions. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jack. Only one person (i.e. Jack) has expressed disagreement with the sentence "Sugar has no demand" (while Ludwigs hasn't referred to this specific sentence but rather to the sentence "you have a message", and also to the whole general issue of equivalence between existence and possession). Anyways, I haven't claimed that the two Americans who have taken a part in this thread constitute a satisfactory sample. Rather, I pointed at the fact (which is really a fact) that both of them happened to be Americans, and also at the fact that both of them had approved of the usage of "Sugar has no demand", and then I asked whether these two facts are related to each other. HOOTmag (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also American, and as you can see above, I do not approve of the usage. Deor (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for having forgotten you.

Where in the States? Washington D.C.? (like John M Baker, who did approve of the usage)? HOOTmag (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, this is not true by necessity. 'Existence' and 'possession' are not equivalent: a message may exist for a person without that person having possession of that message. further, uncountable nouns present different problems - 'there is a cup for water' can not be replaced by 'water has a cup' in any general sense. in the most general sense, though, this is a syllogistic fallacy: A implies B; A exists; therefore B exists is necessarily true; A implies B; B exists; therefore A exists may be false. --Ludwigs2 08:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Who talked about "existence" per se? I haven't talked about "existence", but rather about "existence for", and I've asked whether "existence for" is equivalent to "belonging". In other words, my question is whether a sentence like "for every X there exists a Y", is equivalent to "every X has a Y". Do you think it's not equivalent? Ok, so your opinion is legitimate, but I don't see here any connection to syllogistic fallacies. HOOTmag (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"There is enough food for everyone" is not the same as "everyone has enough food". Gandalf61 (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but I haven't talked about your sentences, but rather about the equivalence of "for every X there exists a Y", and "every X has a Y". Look again at my recent post you've responded to. HOOTmag (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for responding to your original query without realising that you had just changed the question. Very remiss of me. It won't happen again. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

By the way, in some languages (such as Hebrew), the ordinary way of saying "I have X" would literally translate as "There is X for me"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... not quite. Rather than "There is X [available] for me," it's "There is for to me X" (i.e. the X is mine, allocated to me)." -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew monoconsonantal preposition ל can sometimes be translated as "for" as well as "to". If we want to translate a sentence like yesh li kos "I have a cup" while trying to somehow preserve the Hebrew construction, then "there is a cup for me" sounds a lot better in English than "there is a cup to me"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that Deborahjay's point is more about the order of words ("there is for me a cup"), rather than about the difference between "for" and "to". Anyways, you're right: "there is a cup for me" sounds a lot better in English than "there is a cup to me"; Similarly, it sounds a lot better in English than "there is for me a cup". HOOTmag (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To be even more tangential, the Scottish Gaelic equivalent for "to have" is "to be" followed by "at." Thus, "John has a dog" would be "Tha cǜ cù aig Iain" (There-is (a) dog at Iain). --- OtherDave (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that, as far as I know, Scots Gaelic doesn't use umlauts. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. I chose the first special-character U that looked right to me. Thanks; fixed in the text above. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Linguistically, this question was both the motivation for, and experimental downfall of, Noam Chomsky's Transformational-generative grammar. According to Chomsky, these would be fundamentally equivalent up to transformation, though the "active voice" would require less processing time in the brain than the "passive voice" version (the passive voice would be "There is..." in your examples). With a bunch of papers over the course of the decade, this mode of thought became almost dominant until a series of psychology experiments showed that the processing time in the brain was largely independent of the grammatical construct, notably for small sentences as you listed. Thus, in the 80s a new type of formal analysis came about, Cognitive linguistics, which looks at such constructs in terms of the metaphor represented, in which case "there is" is a very different metaphor, representative of some very different object of thought, than "you have" - one can imagine a different focal point. In the first case, I'm thinking of the object itself existing statically, while in the second I am thinking about its existence only in terms of another object, a person in this case. It's a neat concept, but lacks the mathematical formality that Chomsky sought. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying that "I have an X" and "There is an X for me" are underlyingly same sentence, altered in different ways by syntactic transformations to produce different surface forms, sounds much more like Generative semantics than "orthodox" early 1960s and mid-1960s Chomskyan tranformational grammar... AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

It looks like I missed some of the discussion after my original post. Anyway, with respect to the original three pairs of examples: "There is a message for you" and "you have a message" are equivalent statements and are both quite idiomatic. "There is no demand for sugar" and "sugar has no demand" are equivalent statements, but the first is idiomatic while the second is unlikely to be used in colloquial contexts. However, it could be used idiomatically in some contexts, such as businessmen, economists, or business journalists discussing the demand for commodities: "There is strong demand for salt, but sugar has no demand." "There is a greater number for every number" and "every number has a greater number" are equivalents, but to my ear the former sounds less idiomatic. I would expect to hear "for every number, there is a greater number," although "every number has a greater number" might not be too bad in a mathematical context. John M Baker (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the new details. Yes, I've really meant: "for every number, there is a greater number". HOOTmag (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ESPN's use of African language

Hello! During the brief introductions to ESPN's halftime shows of the World Cup in the US, a speaker with a South-African-English accent says something like "Oola! Welcome to ESPN's halftime show presented by..." or "Etada! Welcome back to...", which is English preceded by some foreign-language word, presumably from a language of South Africa. Can anyone who has heard this identify it? Sorry, I would have posted a clip to make this a lot easier, but besides it being copyrighted, I haven't found any with this introduction on Youtube. Googling for words like "welcome" or "hello" in Zulu, Xhosa, and other South-African languages hasn't helped, nor has trying those transcriptions above in Wiktionary. Here's my impression of the various interjections in IPA: [oːˈla] [ˈeːtadaː] [ˈlekʌlʊː]. Can anyone identify the language or what they mean? Thanks for any info!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 21:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

[oːˈla] sounds like Spanish ¡Hola! "Hello", so maybe it's just an international selection of languages rather than specifically South African ones. I can't identify the other two, though. +Angr 06:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason the official World Cup song is in English and Spanish... AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

[oːˈla] doesn't sound like Spanish ¡Hola! to me. Spanish ¡Hola! has stress on the first syllable, and the o isn't long ([ˈo.la]). On the other hand, maybe the presenter is mispronouncing it. Rimush (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've found a Youtube clip of it [6]. Please go to 1:10 in. You'll hear what sounds like [oːˈla] to me, and after that it cuts right to [ˈeːtada]. Any ideas? Thank you!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also a longer example at about 0:40.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there'll be many more takers, which is a pity. The best I can do is direct you to speakers of South African languages on Wikipedia through Babel categories (Category:User xh, Category:User zu, etc.).

I myself cannot find any words resembling those, even on sites like Jennifer's. It might be possible that those are words from South Bantu languages. You give /ʌ/ as a phoneme (as well as /l/), which should narrow it down a bit; our Niger-Congo languages article mentions reconstructed Proto-Niger-Congo /ʊ/ but nothing like that on individual South Bantu language articles. They may be mispronunciations, as per Rimush. Googling etada (naturally) yields many Basque results (=ETA da) so not much success there, as you've said. But I'd direct you to the native speakers on Wikipedia, like the Language Reference Desk has done in the past with similar questions. -- the Great Gavini 18:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't watch the Language Desk (but that will change!). El Aprel contacted me on my talk page.

0:40 the announcer says "Aweh! Hoe lyk hulle?". This is typical Cape flats slang (Cape coloured might also be a pertinent link here). The term "aweh" is just an interjection; it doesn't mean anything. "Hoe lyk hulle?" is Afrikaans, literally translated it means "how look they?" (i.e. how do they look?) which is slang for "how is it?", "how are things?", "how are you?" etc., an informal greeting. It is VERY low-brow but also universal slang (particularly on the Cape flats).

1:10 can't quite make out the words

1:20 The first word I thought of was heita which is a slang "hello" particularly in the African languages, although in the clip it sounds more like "heitada" or something.

I'll ask one of my work colleagues for help tomorrow. Note I know almost nothing about indigenous African languages, just enough basic words to vaguely recognise what's being said and chuck it into Google. Zunaid 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok we discussed it and concluded that 1:10 is the Spanish "Hola" or similar, not an African language. 1:20 is "Heita", the extra "da" is either just an extra slang syllable or it could be the Afrikaans word daar which mean "there", as in "Hello there". Zunaid 14:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it's rather late to be commenting on this, but I have to add something. "Ola" is slang amongst younger South African, used as a greeting (in the same sense as "heita"). It might be derived originally from Spanish, but it's used in the same sense as, "Hi, how are you?". SmallMossie (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

June 15

Spanish Translation

Can someone translate this sentence for me? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC) A él siguieron los descendientes de esta casa real hasta Juan II de Aragón, quien cede Cerdaña, por el Tratado de Bayona, a Luis XI de Francia.

What's the source of the sentence? In any case, here's a stab at it: "[To he followed? - I think that's an idiom of some kind] the descendants of this royal house until Juan II of Aragón, who cedes/hands over Cerdaña, by the Treaty of Bayona, to Louis XI of France." Does that sound like it could be right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, it's from the Spanish wikipedia: [7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

More idiomatic would be: "A él lo(le) siguieron..." tipically 'doubling' the object. Pallida  Mors 00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"A él" in the passage above just means "him", but in English we can't begin a sentence with a direct-object pronoun. So, perhaps the best way to translate the passage would be "The descendants of this royal house succeeded him up to John II of Aragon, who ceded Cerdanya, by the Treaty of Bayonne, to Louis XI of France." Marco polo (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree. Maybe ...succeeded him as counts of Cerdaña... is clearer? Pallida  Mors 00:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WWII wireless operator in AE

According to Wireless (disambiguation), wireless is "an old British term for radio." If a "wireless operator" was called a "radioman" in American English, what to call the position where the radio instrument (presumably a transmitter/receiver) was set up and operated? I'm writing (about Soviet partisan combat) for ELF readers and am trying to be succinct yet avoid ambiguities. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it was only a British term, I believe it's an old US English term, too. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How about just "radio position"? Radio sets for military use during World War II were portable, so they could be carried as needed to new positions. Marco polo (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A quote from the London Times in 1941[8] (scroll down to the bottom of the page) gives "wireless station". "Radio" has supplanted "wireless" in modern UK English, so perhaps "radio station"? Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Radio station" occurred to me, but that term usually refers to an enterprise with one or more structures, broadcasting studios, a large tower, and so on. Since she is referring to a radioman with a very simple, portable radio set, the expression "radio station" could mislead readers into thinking that something much more fixed and elaborate existed. Marco polo (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere between a totally portable setup and a radio station would be a radio shack. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OP concludes: I'm going with "radio communications" to imply rather than spell out the clumsy "transmitter/receiver" construction, and lacking details about the staffing, etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Turned out well

I've just baked a loaf of bread which turned out wonderfully. Does the etymology of 'turn out', as in to result, have anything to do with turning loaves, cakes, etc. out of tins to reveal how well they've cooked? --Frumpo (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it might come from clothes, where collars, cuffs, and sleeves must be "turned out". So, if the sleeves, cuffs, and collar are all turned out properly, then you have "turned out well". Firefighters still call their outfights turnout gear. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that makes sense when describing the appearance of someone. However I wonder whether "How did it turn out?" (i.e. "Was it a success?") might have a different etymology. --Frumpo (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

According to my dictionary, there's an older usage in which being 'turned out' means being well-dressed. it also mentions that 'turning out' is a phrase for calling out guards, so there might be some linkage with guards being properly uniformed when 'turned out' (because the military in every age has a great concern for being dapper). --Ludwigs2 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Frumpo (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of "to hail from"

wikt:hail from doesn't tell me where this expression comes from.

It couldn't possibly have any connection with the ice that falls from the sky, could it?

It also seems unlikely to be associated with the greeting "Hail!", unless maybe in the sense "I bring greetings from my home town Gizzard's Gulch" = "I hail from Gizzard's Gulch".

Any ideas? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's from the same root as "hail" for "health", "a call from a distance", etc. Old Norse heill - health, sound. "Hail" that falls from the sky is from Old English hægl. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 1983, page 564, column 1. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I guess I'm a little befuddled as to how a word meaning "healthy" or "whole" came to mean such apparently different things as calling from a distance, greeting people, praising people, and a reference to the place of one's birth. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really answer your question, but according to the OED the "call from a distance" sense was originally a nautical usage (with reference to shouting from one ship to another) and the "hail from" use was a development of that, originally nautical as well. A ship was said to "hail from" its home port. (Perhaps the idea is that what would be called out to other ships from it was the news from that place.) Deor (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This involves an element of OR on my part, but Hail! (and earlier forms of this Germanic word) was an ancient greeting, I think particularly to a leader. (Forgive me for referencing "Heil Hitler", which was a self-conscious revival of an ancient Germanic greeting.) It is an exact equivalent of the Latin Salve!, which literally means "Be healthy!" To hail thus came to mean "to greet". This verb then gained extended meanings. One might hail a ship to express greetings, and this would have morphed into the simple idea of calling from a distance. One typically "hailed" someone who was worthy of respect, hence the connotation of praise. I am getting a little speculative here, but I can imagine someone "hailing his lordship from his demesne at Chichester" or saying "we hail your majesty from Sussex" to a point, perhaps in early modern times, where "hail from" became just a fancy synonym for "come from". Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to find that Salve! is unrelated to salve, and therefore can't be described as being unctuous. 213.122.13.43 (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

They certainly sound cognate to me. The greeting comes from wishing good health upon someone; the ointment is intended to make you healthier. --Tango (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, etymonline says salve is from a PIE word for butter. Butter doesn't necessarily make you healthier. 213.122.47.225 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, salve as in ointment is a Germanic word that comes from a Proto-Indo-European word for "fat" (probably not originally "butter" as I don't think that had been invented yet in PIE days). The Latin salve is from a different PIE root, one that means "whole". +Angr 06:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Latin 'Salve!' = "Be healthy" has a counterpart in the standard greeting in modern Russian, 'Здравствуйте' (usually translated as "Hello" or something similar, but literally meaning "Be healthy"). And come to think of it, "hello/hallo" and "holler" are not very far from "hale", "hail" and "whole". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello is wikt:holà, which is just "ho there". 213.122.47.225 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so at this stage we have some speculation about "hail from" (thanks, Deor and Marco polo). Anything more concrete than that? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

According to some random but earnest website [9] plenty of our common phrases have a nautical origin, from the obvious like "all hands on deck" to the less obvious "carry on". Often these phrases are borrowed into ordinary land-bound conversation as a way to be brisk and cheerful, shipmate. I don't see why you can't fathom it. 213.122.47.225 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's what I was after. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

'Firing For Effect'

In some wargames and on some warfilms, I have heard this phrase many times, usually by either pilots or artillery commanders. It sort of strikes me as odd, because I have the impression that 'for effect' means 'for show'. Obviously when the pilots are dropping their bombs or doing their strafing runs or whatever, they're not just doing it to put on an airshow. What exactly is the origin of this phrase and why is it used in this way? (On a side note, I have heard 'bombs hit for full effect', which I believe means exactly what it says). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Artillery would fire a few shots to find the range of a target with forward observers telling the guns how to adjust their aim based on the distance from a target or registration object, called "fire for range". Only when they had all the guns properly aimed would they fire "for effect", to actually accomplish the purpose of the attack. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, it does happen in the main barrage rather than the opening salvo. I see what it means now. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Adjusting fire based on feedback from a forward observer before FFE is not a thing of the past, it remains a common field artillery procedure - although FFE from the first round with no adjustment is likely to have a higher effect on the target.[10] decltype (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a bizarre picture. Is the forward observer getting hit by his own artillery? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to depict him measuring the distance between the target and the actual hit with surveying equipment - but I see your point - It does look like he is thrown backwards by the blast. Field artillery can be notoriously inaccurate, and the FO's are often located close to the target, so it's not entirely risk-free. However, he is much more likely to be hit by fragments than the blast itself. decltype (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also note that there are other types of fire, besides ranging and effect. For example, "suppression fire" is used to keep the enemy in their trenches or otherwise sheltered, so they can't set up machine gun nests, lay wire, engage in sniper fire, etc. Then there's the "shock and awe" concept, that you can just scare the enemy off or get them to surrender with a sufficient show. That type of fire may or may not actually be aimed at the target, while "warning fire" is specifically meant to avoid the target, like the proverbial "shot across the bow" in naval confrontations or "shooting above their heads" for controlling rioters (this is why a basketball player should never join in a riot :-) ). StuRat (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

June 16

Mandarin in Japanese

For the romanization of Mandarin, we have pinyin, that use diacritics to mark the four tones (ā, á, ǎ, à). Does Japanese have a valid system for the rendering of tones using only its syllabaries (hiragana, katakana)? They don't seem very suitable for such purpose. --151.51.22.137 (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese does not have tones. See also Tone (linguistics). Oda Mari (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

However, many varieties of Japanese have a pitch accent system. AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear enough. Do japanese people have a native system to mark the 4 tones of Chinese (like we do with pinyin)? English language doesn't have tones, so we managed to find a system to express them. Have japanese people done the same thing? --151.51.22.137 (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my misunderstanding. They use pinyin when they learn Mandarin. Oda Mari (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So they first have to learn the Latin alphabet in order to learn a language which uses a lot of the same characters (albeit with different readings and meanings) as their own? How ironic. Rimush (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not so ironic when you consider the fact that pinyin is the official system of romanisation adopted by the (Mainland) Chinese Government (as opposed to Bopomofo used mainly in Taiwan), and all Chinese learn to use it, and when I say all Chinese, I mean even the ones whose native language is not Mandarin (which is a lot of people!). The OP says, "Do japanese people have a native system to mark the 4 tones of Chinese (like we do with pinyin)? English language doesn't have tones, so we managed to find a system to express them." I think this is the wrong way of thinking. We do not have pinyin, the Chinese do. Pinyin may well be written in roman letters, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with English. It's an alphabetic system of rendering the pronunciation of a given word in Chinese, and it was adopted by the Chinese for that reason. Also, I have seen books teaching (very basic) Chinese in Japan, and some of them have had an approximation of the pronunciation in katakana using the same accents as pinyin to indicate tones, in exactly the same way that Bopomofo does - the OP may want to check that article out. As for Rimush's comment about Japanese first having "to learn the Latin alphabet in order to learn a language which uses a lot of the same characters (albeit with different readings and meanings) as their own" - well, this is not a problem because they start to learn the Latin alphabet in kindergarten these days, before they've even mastered katakana. In any case, it's very much akin to English speakers having to learn IPA in order to learn Irish or French, even though the writing systems of English, Irish and French use the same alphabet. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I never learned IPA and managed to learn foreign languages which use the (more or less) same alphabet as my native tongue, but I see your points. Rimush (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The English article Pinyin corresponds to the Japanese article ja:ピン音, where subsection 2.3 (声調) discusses tones.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As kagetora wrote, a list of simple phrases in guide books for travelers describes Chinese pronunciation only in katakana. But it is not difficult for Japanese people to understand simple written Chinese sentences. I only have fragmentary knowledge of Chinese, but could easily and correctly understand these except B, I have no idea how to read them though. Oda Mari (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel obliged to object every time I see the reference: Bopomofo is not the specific name of a spelling system, it is a generic, colloquial and somewhat juvenile way of indicating a spelling system in Chinese. Zhuyin is called "bopomofo" by those first learning it, and so is pinyin, and any other romanisation system that might be used depending on the learner. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but the page for Bopomofo is a redirect from Zhuyin. Also, in my experience, having spent time as a student only in Mainland China and never in Taiwan - and therefore never having had a reason to learn Zhuyin other than out of pure interest - the people I have associated with, including my teachers, have usually referred to it as Bopomofo. I agree it is probably colloquial, but then there was no 'official' reason for us to really be talking about it, as it had nothing to do with our course (it did, however, have relevance to the tiny few of us who were going to Taiwan, but even they came back calling it Bopomofo). By the way, pinyin was never called 'bopomofo' by any of my teachers, nor is it called that by anyone I know. The name 'bopomofo', on the rare occasions that it has come up in conversation, has always been restricted in meaning zhuyin. 'Pinyin', on the other hand, can refer to a number of writing systems, as you know. I'm sure you know a fair bit more than I do on the subject, PalaceGuard, I'm just explaining my own experience with the word. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Derivation of the word "Laodicea"

Desire meaning of the word 'Laodicea'. My guess: LAO=people DICEA=speak 70.100.72.71 (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)laoq

If you mean this one, it was named for the queen Laodice I, the wife of Antiochus II Theos. I have no source handy for the etymology of her name, but I assume that the first element is as you say but the second element is δίκη, "law" or "justice". Dic(t) meaning "speak" is Latin, not Greek. Deor (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We also have Laodice of Macedonia, after whom five cities were named - are they the same woman? DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not the same, but possibly an ancestress, as she was the mother of Seleucus I Nicator, who founded the dynasty to which Antiochus belonged (and the later Laodice was, as our article says, perhaps his cousin as well as his wife). I guessed that the OP was referring to the most famous (because of the New Testament mentions) Laodicea. Deor (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Seleucid empire had four royal dynastic names for cities founded or re-established by Selucid monarchs -- Seleuceia, Antiokheia (Antioch), Laodicea, and Apameia -- so there were a lot of places named "Laodicea" within the Seleucid realm. (Even Jerusalem was to be renamed into an Antioch under the plans of Antiochus IV Epiphanes/Epimanes.) I don't know the meaning of Laodicea, but the stem deik- in ancient Greek (e.g. deiknumi) means "to point out", not "to speak" (probably the older Indo-European meaning of the root), and I agree that Laodicea is more likely to be derived from ΔΙΚΗ... AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-track but Laodicean was last year's winning word in the Scripps National Spelling Bee. Rmhermen (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Maori in letters

Hi. I am applying for a job in the University of Waikato and would like to include a couple of Maori references in it. Firstly, I would like to change the salutation from "Dear Dr X" to "Kia Ora". Is this OK? Secondly, I want to say that I am familiar with Marae protocol, as I worked in Auckland for five years often working closely with Maori. I have indeed been welcomed (at a formal powhiri, as a representative of the university of Auckland) by the Tainui tribe.

The letter currently says "I have experience of working in a New Zealand (at The University of Auckland) and am familiar with Marae protocol. As a NZ citizen, and tangata whenua Tainui, I am keen to return". Is this form of words OK? Anyone got any better wording? Thanks, Robinh (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the only criticism I can make is that you may want to omit 'a' before New Zealand in 'I have experience of working in a New Zealand'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat off the main question, and depending on your reader, you might be more direct in your statements. "I worked at the University of Auckland," or, even better, highlight those aspects of your experience that related to the position you seek.

• "While on staff at the Mira Szászy Research Centre, I scheduled speakers for blah blah blah..."
• "Knowing Marae protocol enabled me to blah blah blah..."

Whether in English or in Maori, you want to make it easy for your reader to grasp the value that you bring to the organization, and ideally show some knowledge of the challenges the position is meant to address. That value is always in the reader's terms. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Kia ora" is an informal greeting (like "hi") and is probably not appropriate for the formality of a job application. http://www.korero.maori.nz/forbusiness/using.html offers advice for business letters. Like all aspects of job applications, don't make any claims in your letter you can't back up in interview...so familiarise yourself with any terms you use (pronunciation, use, reply, meaning etc) so you can respond appropriately in interview. If in doubt, say so: "ignorant but keen to know more" is better than "I think I know everything even when I don't". Also check your spelling: it has become recently become formal practice to use macrons over long vowels, hence "Māori" rather than "Maori", which you might consider more appropriate for your formal letter. Formality would also require you to write "New Zealand" rather than abbreviate with "NZ". One query: Are you of Tainui descent? Your opening paragraph implies you were only a guest on University business, not tāngata whenua; a marae welcome grants only temporary or honorary status. Gwinva (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Word Usage

"I'm not a fan of the green olive."

When I refer to green olives, as I did above, with the word "the," what is it called, why would it be done? I'm just looking for a general description of whatever is going on in that sentence. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The definite article acting as a determiner? Pallida  Mors 17:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

the word 'the' (called an article in English) is generally used to specify unique objects. e.g. "The president" specifies a singular individual whereas "A president" can refer to any of a number of people who've held the post. When it's applied to objects that are not normally considered in unique individual terms, however, it becomes a kind of universalizer/emphatic. e.g.:

• "I'm not a fan of that green olive" - a particular green olive displeases you for some reason (oddly shaped, maybe?)
• "I'm not a fan of green olives" - I don't like green olives as a rule
• "I'm not a fan of the green olive" - I don't even like the idea of green olives.

It's a bit pretentious sounding, so it's not a common usage.

This assumes, of course, that you're not talking about a store (or maybe a superhero) called "the Green Olive". --Ludwigs2 17:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Contrast with "I'm not a fan of the green olives." (plural), which generally interpreted to mean "I'm not a fan of those green olives that are being served currently, although I'm not making any claims about other green olives which may be served in the future." -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that the interpretation is simplified with mass nouns (or words used as such), where "I'm not a fan of the taramosalata" refers to a particular taramosalata (e.g. the one currently served), whereas "I'm not a fan of taramosalata." (no article) means that you don't like taramosalata in general. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's true. I hadn't considered that interpretation. --Ludwigs2 18:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll see "the" with a singular noun used in reference to a group of people in cases like the title of this article. It tends to be used of minority groups, and, as often as not, disparagingly. It reminds me of descriptions of non-human animates - "The double-breasted warbler makes its home in tall trees ...". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It also occurs in the name of the website The Wikipedian.—Wavelength (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned by Jack of Oz, it is perfectly usual to use "the" before the name of a species (common not Latin name, and singular not plural). "The kakapo parrot is an endangered species", "the polar bear is not found in Antarctica", "the Bramley apple is best known as a cooking apple". Here we are not speaking of an individual of the species, but the species. So even if a "green olive" is not the name of a species, it is being treated as such. Sussexonian (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A category of women is discussed by http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_corinthians/7-34.htm. —Wavelength (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A person who says "The customer is always right" is probably referring to customers in general.—Wavelength (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Generic usage. As a first approximation, singular with a(n), singular with the and bare plural are all OK: The Englishman's home is his castle / An Englishman's home is his castle / Englishmen's homes are their castles. Yes, The customer is always right is generic (unless an unusual context specifies otherwise); we prefer "the" because this is an ossified catchphrase, but A customer is always right and Customers are always right would be OK too. ¶ Heesowever, this approximation isn't quite adequate, because (to me at least) I'm a fan of a green olive would beg the question "Oh really? Which one?" (Cf the odd I'm a fan of a novel, which -- at least to me -- could never mean a liking for all novels.) And I'm a fan of green olives seems to me to have a very slightly different nuance. So perhaps the only reliable form for generic is definite singular, which can be supplemented by indefinite plural and indefinite singular when conditions are right; however, I haven't thought this through. ¶ Here's more on generics and definiteness and articles in English. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that Otto Jespersen's classic multi-volume English grammar has an extended discussion of generics, where he establishes that all four combinations of indefinite vs. definite and singular vs. plural can serve to signal generic meaning in English (though some are more common than others, of course). AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a nuance between "I'm not a fan of cheesy chips" and "I'm not a fan of the cheesy chip". I only know this as a native speaker, would be very interested to read the result of a systematic investigation into this question. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

BTW "Not a fan of the cheesy chip" sounds like a recent formulation, 1960s onwards, post Jespersen anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Archaic Dutch declension

Dear friend on the English Wikipedia,

With apologies for my lack of knowlege about English language, I want to write you the following:

Your article Archaic Dutch declension is realy concerning me. Indead, Dutch knew a long time ago declension because of having cases. The article says right: this declension wasn't used in dayly talking, but just a formality in written language.

But then... I cannot find any literature that tells about a vocative and a locative in (writen and archaic) Dutch at all. There are certainly ways, gramaticle constructions, that take over the function of these cases in Dutch comparing with Latin, but this seems to be really nonsens. Also does declension of all pronouns. It looks like some one translated the German grammar with Ducht examples.

The indefinite article has no plural as such, but "vele" (many) may be taken as its plural? May taken as a indefinit article? Vele is a collective numeral, also specified in Dutch grammar as a so called indefinite numeral (e.g. much, manny, lots, few).

The chapter Diminutives is not about archaic Dutch! Is about modern Dutch since the last two times we officially changes our spelling in 1995 and 2005.

I hope some one with more knowlege of English and Dutch both can review and overwrite this article. It's worth explaning about languages on this Wiki, but this article is not telling the truth.

Last thing: furthermore your English Wikipedia is a succes full project and I like the most of your articles. Please go on succeeding!

Mark Coenraats (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing. If you don't feel able to make changes yourself, the place to discuss the problems in the article is in its talk page. --ColinFine (talk)

I copied the discussion to Talk:Archaic Dutch declension. Please contribute there, at one place, and not (also) here. Greetings, Mark Coenraats (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

English for Swedish "Idrott"

What would be a reasonable English translation for the Swedish term idrott? The handy venn diagram on the Swedish page for that would suggest it is "physical sports and physically active pastimes" (for which I can't think of an English word or handy term). SV->EN dictionaries just say "sport", making names like IF Boltic just translate "sports club Boltic". Is there an obvious English cognate that I'm missing, or some other suitable term? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's probably akin to German Leibesübungen, as in the name of VfL Wolfsburg - don't know about an English translation, though. Rimush (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sports" or "games" would be fine - for a sports club (such as IF Boltic), then sports club would appear to be an excellent translation. DuncanHill (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the Venn diagram in the Swedish article, "physical activities" is the best I can come up with. "Sports" and "games" both convey an element of competition that is not necessarily present in idrott, and the latter includes many non-physical pastimes. Deor (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Recreation Club? Bielle (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, a "recreation club" suggests snooker, darts, beer consumption, etc more than it does physical sports and physically active pastimes, although it can indeed encompass these. -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "athletic" or "athletics"? In English, this term encompasses both formal sports and noncompetitive forms of vigorous exercise, such as mountaineering or swimming for exercise. Marco polo (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good translation, at least in the AmE sense of the word "athletics". It is worth noting, though, there are a number of Swedish organisations called <SomeTown> Atletklubb, and they all seem to focus on weight lifting, body building and possibly wrestling. I.e., the scope of the word used in the names of Swedish clubs is a bit narrower. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

June 17

Asking about quantity in English

If I want to know what quantity of fruit someone has picked, I might ask them, "How much fruit did you pick?"

If I want to know what quantity specifically of blueberries they had picked, how do I phrase the question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.42.157 (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"How many blueberries did you pick?" Although I can see why you're asking, because if picking blueberries is anything like picking strawberries, where you pick basketfuls, they would probably count the number of baskets than the number of specific blueberries. In any case, when counting berries or baskets, I can also imagine hearing "how much berries" in very informal speech. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You will hear (mostly) uneducated native speakers of English saying things like "how much berries". However, educated speakers (other than professional linguists) consider that usage incorrect. So, if you are learning English, you should always say "how many berries", or as the case may be, "how many baskets of berries". Marco polo (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, if one does not know or care how large a basket is, one could ask "What quantity of blueberries did you pick?". Then they can answer in ways such as "Seven baskets", "Fifteen kilos", "Thirty pounds", etc. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In my part of the United States at least "What quantity of blueberries did you pick?" is perfectly understandable and correct, but it would be far more common to hear "How many blueberries did you pick?" expecting any of of the following kinds of answers: "I picked three blueberries." "I picked two cups of blueberries." "I picked all the blueberries." "I filled one basket." The list goes on. If the basket is an unknown size, you could ask "How big is the basket?" Falconus^{p t c} 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In UK, and would say exactly the same as Falconus. An interesting question that shows that we do not always think logically about the count/non-count distincion. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

German "beziehungsweise" (bzw.)

I don't understand the usage of this word at all and I was hoping that one of this desk's regular German experts could enlighten me. Take this sentence, for example: "Mit diesem Kabel können Sie Ihren Drucker bzw. Scanner anschließen." Why is bzw. used here where, to my mind, a simple oder ought to suffice? Another example: I heard a station announcer say recently that the line was closed in two places, "zwischen [station name A] und [station name B] bzw. [station name C] und [station name D]". Why is bzw. used here where und zwischen would mean exactly the same thing? Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz ^talk 08:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

beziehungsweise is the equivalent of English respectively. I see the use of bzw. instead of oder or und as more of a style question. English is actually even more redundant, using both or and respectively (againg, dependent on style): "With this cable you can connect your printer or scanner, respectively". I can't think of a nice translation for the second example, but "zwischen Karlsplatz und Volkstheater bzw. zwischen Keplerplatz und Reumannplatz" is clearer than "zwischen Karlsplatz und Volkstheater und zwischen Keplerplatz und Reumannplatz", imo. Rimush (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I see what you mean about the second example, but as for the first, I don't see the need for that "respectively" in English. ""With this cable you can connect your printer or scanner" says it all (actually, a better translation would be "You can use this cable to connect your printer or scanner"). --Viennese Waltz ^talk 10:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As an English native speaker I have to agree that in the printer/scanner sentence, "respectively" is borderline incorrect and most native speakers wouldn't produce such a phrase. But Rimush's point is valid--there are many instances where respectively is used by native speakers in a superfluous manner.--达伟 (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Beziehungsweise is usually translated as "respectively", but it can also mean things like "as the case may be" or "whichever applies". In the first case above, oder would have worked too, but beziehungsweise gives an added sense of "whichever is more relevant for you". Marco polo (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea that beziehungsweise means "respectively" is a dangerous piece of misinformation that needs to be stamped out. This false belief has led many Germans who translate into English to produce such monstrosities as "With this cable you can connect your printer resp. scanner". At best, beziehungsweise can sometimes mean "and ... respectively" (i.e. A bzw. B can be translated A and B, respectively), but usually it can be translated or with a flavor of "as the case may be" added. When I'm translating out of German, I translate bzw. as "or" 95% of the time and as "and" the remaining 5% of the time. +Angr 16:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I must be mistaking English respectively for Romanian respectiv, then. You can translate German beziehungsweise as Romanian respectiv 95% of the time, and the usage of English respectively seems pretty close to the Romanian one. It seems that it doesn't work as a three-way comparison, though. Rimush (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can use respectiv as a conjunction - if you can say A respectiv B to mean "A and B respectively" or "A and/or B" or "A or B, as the case may be" - then its use isn't close to that of English respectively. +Angr 06:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a case of (somewhat) false friends. Rimush (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I love Angr's "dangerous piece of misinformation that needs to be stamped out". He is right of course. The best you can do keep the "respectively", "as the case may be" or "whichever applies" at the back of your head and then observe the bzw. in the wild for a while. But you need to observe usage skeptically, because while it can be used well by good writers, it can be used as a cheap filler by bad ones. I think the basic idea is that bzw. is a placeholder for an argument of mutatis mutandis which the writer doesn't make assuming the reader already understands. It is saying "ok, you know what I mean, let's not waste your and my time, you rearrange the argument accordingly and get this other configuration to which this other thing applies". This works really well if the author is making an intelligent argument and the reader is smart enough to follow, but it is really awful when used by authors who are just mimicking intelligence, thinking that throwing in a gratuitous bzw. will make them look smarter. I have seen cringeable use of bzw. in academic writing, the sort of cargo cult intelligentsia you get in volumes of essays driven by "publish or perish" where poeple try to look as erudite as they can at a minimal investment of brains. I think the most faithful translation of bzw. you could give in English would be something like "and/or, mutatis mutandis," -- except that you cannot give this, of course, because it makes you sound impossibly pompous even the first time you use it, while you can use bzw. without flinching at least three times on a page :) --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, alright, I was wrong, I got the red card, let it be already - it's not like I'm a linguist or anything :P Rimush (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Transcription/Transliteration/Translation Query

I am working on a manuscript from 1724 (written in Latin) that includes three words written with a Greek alphabet. Unfortunately, the typeface is in italics, making even transcription a pretty big problem. I believe these are grammatical terms. Any help as to which of the transcriptions is more likely to be a word, what that word might be transliterated as, and what said word means in contemporary English would be appreciated. Thanks.

1. μυημουικου or μυημουιχου
2. αμαζτημα or αμαςτημα
3. παζοζαμχ or παςοςαμχ or παζοζαμκ or παςοςαμκ

Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The words in number 3 aren't even possible Greek words, as Greek words can never end in μχ or μκ. The glyph ς only appears at the ends of words, so the options with ς in the middle of a word aren't possible either. Any chance of uploading a scan of the words in question? +Angr 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help. Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 16:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we guessed correctly μνημονικὸν and ἁμάρτημα. The third word is παρόραμα, I don't know what it could mean. —Emil J. 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The context (or what I can make of it anyway) suggests that these words could be examples from the object language rather than grammatical terms, which means that the "sin" is not a problem.—Emil J. 17:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) #1 is probably a form of the adjective μνημονικός (mnēmonikós); your spelling with -ου would make it gen. sg. masc. or neut. μνημονικοῦ (mnēmonikou), but seeing that you systematically confuse υ with ν, it could also be nom.sg.neut. μνημονικόν (mnēmonikón).—Emil J. 16:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

#2 could be ἁμάρτημα since there are glyphs of ρ where the tail loops under in a way that could look like ζ or a closed ς. However, the word means "sin"; it's not a grammatical term. Perhaps #3 therefore begins παρορα-. +Angr 16:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

... and perhaps ends in -μη? That does not make any word I could recognize, though.—Emil J. 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm liking mnemonikon and amarthma. It will change my translation substantially, but i think it makes some sense... only the last one to go then? Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 17:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The transliteration is hamártēma.—Emil J. 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the last one is παρόραμα meaning a negligence or omission. Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 17:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is μνημονικόν, αμάρτημα and παρόραμα, the latter meaning erratum, omission. Constantine ✍ 17:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn'?

My wife was reading A Caribbean Mystery by Agatha Christie the other day, and she asked me why in a few places <damn> is spelled out as <damn'> (with an apostrophe at the end). I had no idea, never having seen that spelling before. Does anyone else know?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2010; 17:55 (UTC)

Is this "damn" in its adjectival/adverbial usage? If so, it's probably to mark that it's a contraction of "damned". Algebraist 18:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's the case. Thanks for the answer; I'll post a note here after checking the book if the usage turns out to not be adjectival/adverbial. By the by, why contract "damned" this way? Is this a dialectal thing?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2010; 18:19 (UTC)

I think people very often pronounce damned as [dæm], or, if you prefer, use damn as an adjective as well as a verb. Probably Agatha Christie simply wanted to show the pronunciation [dæm] rather than [dæmd] while recognizing that damn isn't an adjective. So she added an apostrophe to show that she knew the word was really damned but that the speaker pronounced it [dæm]. +Angr 19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Angr. This makes sense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2010; 20:55 (UTC)

Or as an abbreviation of "damnation". Astronaut (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Feitknechtit

I found this term (it's a mineral) in the German Wikipedia, but I can't find its English equivalent. Is it the same? Moreover, what's its etymology? --151.51.22.137 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Feitknechtite, named for Walter Feitknecht, professor of chemistry, University of Bern. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Declensions of "just"

How exactly does one inflect the adjective just?

According to Wiktionary, it is not considered uncomparable. To wit, one may say less just and least just. But what about upward comparison? To me, juster and justest don't sound quite right; thus, I figured it was probably an archaic past participle —inflecting as more just and most just.

A quick check of several dictionaries, however, revealed that the word did not come to us as a past participle. Is wiktionary wrong, is just an absolute adjective like equal or unique? Pine (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be more just and most just. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's perhaps a little archaic now, but search Google for "with a juster and "in a juster" and you'll turn up plenty of hits, mainly from the 19th century and early 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary records actual usage (rather than what some consider "proper"), so if the comparative is used (other than just by mistake or in blogs etc), it should be recorded there. Dbfirs 06:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

June 18

What is so special about accents, that makes them so difficult?

How does it come that many people are quite good in some aspects - vocabulary, syntax - of a foreign language, but still have a foreign accent - sometimes quite thick and even after several years? --Mr.K. (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's make a distinction between speaking/writing and listening/reading. As far as speaking/writing is concerned, some people find it much easier to write than to speak, because the ability to write correctly requires "mental" talents only (grammar, syntax, vocabulary etc.), while the ability to speak requires also "motoric" talents (mainly: accent). On the other hand, as far as listening/reading is concerned, some people find it much easier to read than to listen, because the ability to read correctly requires just the ability to distinguish between visual nunaces - the reader determining one's own rate of reading, while the ability to listen requires the ability to distinguish between acoustical differences (reflected by nuances in accent) - the listener being unable to control the rate of speech. To sum up: As far as speaking/writing is concerned - mental talents are (for some people) more available than motoric ones, and as far as listening/reading is concerned - visual differences are (for some people) much easier to notice than accoustical ones. HOOTmag (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

HOOTmag has given a very nice technical description of what makes pronunciation qualitatively different from syntax. I would add that teaching methods also share some blame in taking an extremely permissive approach to bad pronunciation and exposing new language learners to artificial language environments in which competent speaking skills and accurate language production are of little concern. Some people are barely even aware that different languages are composed of different phonetic building blocks that must be given special attention. And since pronunciation relies so much on motor skills and muscle memory, bad habits fossilize quite early on, and people don't even realize just how far off their own pronunciation is. Paul Davidson (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

-er vs. -eer in English

manage => manager, fish => fisher, roof => roofer, but mountain => mountaineer, profit => profiteer, auction => auctioneer. Is there a rule or pattern? --173.49.13.168 (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

One pattern that stands out is that you add -er to verbs and -eer to nouns. Paul Davidson (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)